On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 12:12 AM Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > your last version has over 5K changes and from those almost 10% seem > to be missing from the original, so my guess would be this is indeed > not something that could be reviewed in time for the next release > (currently in rc1) AS-IS. I just rebased the patch to make sure that it doesn't include any changes that have already been made upstream. > Before I gave up, I noticed there were indeed some where the original > text was too mangled to be readable, so maybe focus on those first to > make the patch more easy to digest and to get those fixes for the > release. > > Some of the other ones might be added on top as independent commits > grouped in common cases (ex: the ones adding/removing spaces, or the > ones where a specific term has been renamed) so the full list is more > manageable IMHO, and might even get enough reviews to be included > sooner than later. If that's what it takes, I'll do it, but others have submitted tiny pull requests at https://github.com/ChrisADR/git-po/pulls and they have been ignored too. > PS. for example one of the first changes does ("aplicar stash" -> > "hacer stash") for "stash" which make more sense than the direct > translation "esconder" in this context, especially considering the > command is called "stash" anyway, but that seem more of a personal > preference and definitely could wait, unlike others. having that (and > similar changes) on its own patch allows for a discussion and > prioritization without holding the more important changes. "aplicar stash" literally means "apply stash", but this is incorrect: The command runs `git stash`, not `git stash apply`. That's why I changed it; it has nothing to do with personal preference. -Alex
